• Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Yeah there’s nothing in there anywhere about land rights, it was purely about recognition. I have no idea how the issue got conflated by that nonsense, all I know is it’s being peddled by a bunch of racists. You do seem to genuinely care but imo it just makes this all sadder. I do agree Labour did a horrible job with all this but I still see no good reason for anyone to vote no. It’s all written in the information, and no you don’t need to answer every question before hand, it says in the information that parliament gets to decide the functions, composition and procedures. It had absolutely nothing to do with land rights, there was so much disinformation spread about this and I hate everyone who couldn’t just read it and instead trusted whatever some moron on sky news or facebook said.

    • Takatakatakatakatak@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      9 months ago

      It got conflated because there are multiple global examples to where the constitutional change that passed was equally broad and has created a situation where you cannot sneeze in your back garden without first asking a first nations corporation for permission and paying the tithe. I’m not saying that some form of financial reparations should be ruled out, but landing it on the heads of people who purely through accident of birth grow up in a former colony is not going to fly. It ends up in a circular argument every single time. Perhaps the British crown should own their crimes and shoulder the financial burden of making things right? Certainly no questioning the lineage of those responsible there.

      • Nachorella@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        9 months ago

        No, it’s not broad. Please for the love of christ read: In recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as the First Peoples of Australia:

        there shall be a body, to be called the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice; 

        the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice may make representations to the Parliament and the Executive Government of the Commonwealth on matters relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples;

        the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

        Nothing anywhere that would have any say in land rights, it’s a completely separate issue.

        • Takatakatakatakatak@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          9 months ago

          the Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws with respect to matters relating to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice, including its composition, functions, powers and procedures.

          It certainly isn’t specific.

          Who will this person be, claiming to represent the interest of 200 distinct language groups? What laws will be made?

          It’s little wonder it failed. You and I can’t even agree and it seems like we’re ostensibly on the same side of the issue.